Thursday, June 13, 2013

Labels sought for genetically modified food

Andrea Stander of Rural Vermont helped organize a protest Sept. 20 in Burlington, prompted by the appearance of a Monsanto vice president at a feed dealers meeting.(Photo: Dan D'Ambrosio, Gannett)

Story Highlights

More states taking on the issue

Vermont, Connecticut, Washington have advanced legislation

Agriculture increasingly turning to genetically altered crops

From Maine to Washington, a growing number of states are taking on the issue of genetically engineered foods, fanning the flames of a decades-old debate about whether the products are dangerous to human health.This month, Connecticut became the first state to pass a law requiring the labeling of food made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In May, the Vermont House passed a similar bill, which will now be taken up by the Senate. Right to Know GMO , a self-described grass-roots coalition with members in 37 states, counts 26 states that have introduced labeling bills. In Washington state, a referendum on GMO labeling is scheduled for November. Last November, a referendum in California failed 53-47 after the biotech industry spent nearly $45 million on opposition ads.At the federal level, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., introduced a bill in April – separate from the farm bill – that would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to "clearly label" genetically engineered foods. Boxer notes she has 11 co-sponsors of the bill, which she first introduced in 2000. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced the House version.Boxer also attached two amendments to the farm bill, one saying that the United States should join the 64 other nations, including those in the European Union, that have labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods. The other amendment requires a report in six months from several federal agency heads reviewing the labeling methods used internationally, and the "probable impacts" of having differing labeling requirements passed by states rather than a federal standard."As more and more states take action, I believe lawmakers in Washington will realize that Congress and the FDA must ensure that all Americans know what's in the food they're eating," Boxer said in an e-mail. "The companies have such complete control over who can do independent research into the nature of these things and their impact that we really don't know very much," said Andrea Stander, executive director of Rural Vermont, a non-profit farm advocacy group. "We don't know nearly as much as we should."The FDA ruled in 1992 that genetically engineered foods are not "materially different" from their traditional counterparts and therefore do not have to be labeled, a ruling opponents of GMOs won't accept.Monsanto, based in St. Louis, Mo., is a leading supplier of seeds for genetically engineered crops to farmers in the United States and around the world, and a frequent target of protests against GMOs. The company has clearly stated why it is opposed to labeling, saying mandatory labeling "could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts."About 90% of the corn, cotton, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States are genetically engineered, according to BIO, the trade group representing Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont and other giant firms that dominate the industry.The modifications to the DNA of seeds, which started in the mid-1990s, fall into two categories: seeds that have built-in genetic resistance to insects, forgoing the need for insecticides, and seeds that tolerate herbicides, making it possible to spray crops, such as soy beans, that are prone to weeds.Genetic engineering is the fastest growing technology in the history of agriculture, with upward of 17 million farmers around the world using genetically altered seeds, BIO spokeswoman Karen Batra said.The problem with requiring labels on genetically engineered foods, Batra said, is that they would imply those foods are unsafe."In the United States, food packaging labels are reserved to convey food safety information about allergens that might be in a food or to convey nutritional composition," she said. "If the federal government were to mandate by law that a particular food product needed to be labeled that would infer it would be for a safety reason."D'Ambrosio also reports for The Burlington (Vt.) Free Press

BREAKING NEWS FROM AUGUSTA, MAINE THIS AFTERNOON:GMO LABELING BILL PASSES IN MAINE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY!Thank you to all those who made this effort possible. There's a fire growing ever bigger in this country to ensure food sovereignty; taking control of the right to know what's in our food and choose what we wish to eat and feed to our children; the right to have access to food that is nutritionally sound and culturally appropriate. The bill now goes on to Gov. LePage to sign. PeaceLillian Lake

A new feeding study published today shows pigs raised from weaning to slaughter (22.7 weeks) on feed comprised of GM soy and GM corn had increased uterine weight and increased incidence of stomach inflammation compared to pigs raised on non-GM feed. This study is of great significance to us because pigs and humans have similar digestive systems. This is bad for the pigs (and by extension, us) but good for the labeling movement because it adds to the growing body of evidence of the potential risks associated with consuming a steady diet of GMOs. A summary by the study authors appears below, along with a link to paper itself.

At a commercial piggery in the U.S., we took 168 just-weaned pigs and fed them a typical diet for the piggery, containing soy and corn, for 22.7 weeks (over 5 months) until the pigs were slaughtered at their usual slaughter age. Half of the pigs were fed widely-used varieties of GM soy and GM corn (the GM-fed group) for this whole period, and the other half of the pigs were fed an equivalent non-GM diet (the control group). The GM diet contained three GM genes and therefore three GM proteins. One protein made the plant resistant to a herbicide, and two proteins were insecticides.

We chose a mixed diet instead of a single crop because this is usually what pigs and people eat. Regulators do not require animal feeding studies on mixtures of GM genes and their proteins, regardless of whether the genes are all “stacked” into the one plant or spread across several plants that are eaten in the same meal.

We chose pigs because they have a similar digestive system to humans, and because some of the investigators had been observing reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed GM crops.

We took blood from the pigs a few days before they were slaughtered to do standard biochemistry tests. Autopsies were done by qualified veterinarians who didn't know if a given pig was fed the GM diet or not, so their observations were completely unbiased.

Some of the investigators had previously seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows were fed a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination. Artificial insemination guarantees the presence of a certain number of viable sperm. Because male pigs were neutered at 3 days of age in order to provide meat free of boar-taint, we were only able to look at the female reproductive system in these pigs. We found that, on average, the weight of the uterus of pigs fed the GM diet, as a proportion of the weight of the pig, was 25% higher than the control pigs. We found that this biologically significant finding was also statistically significant. We list some of the pathologies that could be occurring in these uteri in the paper.

Some of the investigators had also previously seen higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from their bowel and die. We weren't able to look inside the intestines, due to the amount of food in them, but we were able to look inside the stomach.

We found that the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed the GM diet. Pigs on the GM diet were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs. Males were more strongly affected. While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely. These findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant.

We found that these key findings were not reflected in the standard biochemistry tests that are done in GM feeding studies, probably because standard biochemistry tests provide a poor measure of inflammation and matters associated with uterus size. We did however find a marginally significant change on a measure of liver health in the blood of GM-fed pigs.

Thank you for your email on A.3525. I am a co-sponsor of this measure and astrong supporter.

On June 3, the legislation was considered by the Assembly Consumer AffairsCommittee. It is a 15 member committee and 8 votes are required for a billto be reported out of committee. I am not a member of the committee.

There was a committee vote on the bill. 7 voted in favor and 6 voted inopposition, and two were not present, resulting in the failure of the motionto report.

Obviously, I am deeply disappointed in the outcome. It is unclear whether ornot this bill will be brought back for another vote in the committee thissession. There are only 8 session days left.

In any case, I remain committed to the passage of this legislation. Therehas been no vote at all in the State Senate. We clearly have much worked todo to insure that this bill becomes law. However, I am confident that wewill ultimately be successful. I understand your frustration, but hope thatyou will continue to work with us to accomplish the goal.

Sadly, I just learned that Assembly Member Gabryszak of the Assembly cavedin to pressure from the biotech industry and voted against A3525-A inCommittee. I urge you to encourage leadership to bring this bill onceamended to a vote on the floor. My right to know shouldn't be compromised bybackroom deals with lobbyists.

Many processed foods include GE ingredients, which have not been tested forlong-term impacts on human health or environmental safety. What's more, thegovernment regulators do no independent safety testing and instead rely ondata submitted by biotechnology companies. Because foods containing GEingredients aren't required to be labeled, consumers like me don't even knowwhen we are eating them.

Will you support A3525-A/S3835-A to require labeling on all GE foods in NewYork and encourage leadership to bring these bills to a vote on the floor?

Sunday, June 9, 2013

How Grassroots Advocates Beat the Biotech and Food Lobbies

This week, Connecticut won the honor of becoming the first state to pass a law requiring genetically engineered foods to be labeled. (The governor has indicated he
will sign.) It was really only a matter of time. The disappointing
defeat of Prop 37 last fall in California (thanks to a massive industry disinformation campaign) sparked a national movement that has (Photo: CT Senate Democrats/ Flickr)resulted in labeling bills getting introduced in about half the states.But how did the small state of Connecticut make this happen?I spoke at length with the leader of the effort, Tara Cook-Littman of GMO Free CT, who worked for the past two years as a volunteer. (See the group’s impressive list of coalition partners.)She said for a long time efforts to pass labeling bills went nowhere,
but things started to change two years ago once advocates formally
organized themselves. While at first she and others “were dismissed as a
bunch of crazy moms and environmentalists,” things started to pick up
last year “when advocates were able to show themselves to be a serious
movement with political power.”What about the opposition? Cook-Littman said it was formidable, and
that industry made all the same fear-mongering arguments we heard last
year during Prop 37 in California about higher food prices and confusing
consumers.She and others suspect the biotech industry was funneling money through the trade group the Connecticut Food Association, which represents retailers and wholesalers. Also in opposition was the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the national trade group for food makers, which firmly stated its opposition to Prop 37 last year, calling it the organization’s “single-highest priority.”In addition, Cook-Littman told me about the front group industry formed to oppose the bill, “Connecticut Farm to Food.” (For more about front groups, see my recent report.)
This group’s home page claims boldly if inexplicably, “Forced labeling
will drive business and science out of Connecticut.” Listed as sponsors
are three groups: The Council for Biotechnology Information (a trade
group for the biotech industry; its website is whybiotech.com), the Connecticut Retail Merchants Association,
and the previously mentioned Grocery Manufacturers Association. In
other words, two of these three groups behind this “Connecticut”
organization are based in Washington DC.The toughest opposition though, Cook-Littman said, came from the
Connecticut Farm Bureau, which claimed the bill would hurt farmers,
despite the bill not even being about farming, but rather food products.
“They claimed that farmers’ sales of value-added products would be
destroyed if they had to be labeled,” she said. But as a strong
counterweight, advocates had the support of the state’s numerous organic
farmers, led by the Connecticut Chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, which Cook-Littman called “our truest partner.”Still, how did this grassroots group fight off such high-powered
lobbyists representing at least three major industries – biotech, food
retailers, and food manufacturers? She said, “We just got louder.”What exactly was the turning point for the movement? Cook-Littman
said face-to-face meetings with politicians were critical. “We spent a
lot of time developing relationships with our representatives. Just
spending that time with them was invaluable,” she said.Also, the group’s social media presence, especially on Facebook,
allowed non-paid advocates to engage in less time-consuming ways. “We
told our representatives, ‘Look at what’s happening on Facebook.’”And simply showing up in massive numbers when it counted: at two
critical rallies, one before the legislative session began, another just
weeks ago, along with a huge turnout for the hearing.Cook-Littman credits the national advocacy group Food Democracy Now! for
being a vital partner in the effort. “We could not have done it without
them. They always believed in us, while others discounted us,” she
said. “They also helped drive more than 40,000 phone calls to the
governor’s office and provided strategic advice along the way.”Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!,
told me that another turning point was when Jerry Greenfield of Ben and
Jerry’s Ice Cream came to the capital to testify in support of the bill.“That gave the issue instant credibility because Ben and Jerry’s is a
very successful company. There were politicians who had been against
the bill standing in line for ice cream and a photo opp with Jerry.”Also, there were several times during the process when they thought
the bill was dead. But the advocates didn’t give up; another crucial
lesson: to hang in there.Of course, to get any bill difficult bill passed, compromises must be made along the way. While the labeling provisions of the bill are strong, unfortunately, legislators added a “trigger
clause,” which requires that four other states in the northeast region
enact similar bills before the law takes effect in Connecticut.Cook-Littman told me that the advocates fought to keep this provision
out, but at the end of day they were advised to take the compromise or
else risk the bill going down to defeat, with an uncertain future. She
is quite confident that the clause will actually motivate other states
to get bill passed. And as a member of the Right to Know Coalition of States, she is determined to help others in doing so. She also hopes the passage helps the Washington State ballot measure coming up for vote this November.What advice does Cook-Littman have for advocates in other states facing similar opposition from powerful lobbyists?“I told my fellow advocates, ‘Stand in your power as a constituent
and let your representatives hear you.’ Too often, we give up our
power,” she said. “But once you realize that you can make a difference,
that’s when change happens. Also, stay the course and keep fighting.”Dave Murphy called the Connecticut victory “one giant step for
Connecticut and one giant leap for the GMO labeling movement.” He
continued: “The grassroots have won the day in Connecticut for a key
victory over Monsanto and the biotech lobby. It was inspiring to watch
Connecticut legislators supporting GMO labeling stand strong in the face
of the biotech industry’s effort to kill the bill.”Also feeling inspired, Cook-Littman told me, “It truly feels amazing
to know that our little state of Connecticut, with its grassroots power,
was able to beat back the opposition to get the bill passed. I really
do think it is an important step and will encourage other states to do
the same.”I couldn’t agree more. These victories don’t come very often. Let’s savor this one.

Coming soon to your backyard, Monsanto and gang!

Tuesday, 4 June 2013, 6:01 pmArticle: Andrea Brower

by Andrea BrowerMay 30,
2013

When the handful of corporations set on
owning, controlling and über-profiting from our common seed
heritage — Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, BASF and Bayer
— began experimenting with their proprietary chemicals and
genetically engineered crops in Hawaii in the 1990s, barely
a peep was made. Two decades later, we can’t even convince
our Hawaii state government to pass a law making these
companies release basic information about the pesticides
they spray next to primary schools. Children are sent home
vomiting and with nose bleeds. The national US-level is
even more outrageous. Some will have heard of the infamous
revolving door between Monsanto and the Federal Government.
The recently passed “Monsanto Protection Act” that
mandates the government to allow planting of GE-crops even
if courts rule they pose health risks. Monsanto’s
triumphant suing of family farmers to the tune of USD$27
million (many of whom did not plant Monsanto’s patented
seeds but are victims of cross-pollination). Or even the
current push to prohibit states from passing GE-labeling
laws (despite the fact that 82% of Americans support
labeling). The power of these biotech/chemical (all are
both) companies in the US reaches from the highest offices
of government to local Farm Bureaus, and from university
research centers to primary school gardens. Their political
and economic power is anti-democratic and dangerous to food
security and sustainability, and should serve as a warning
of things to come if New Zealand does not start making some
strong decisions to take it in another direction.

Monsanto
and gang are already more entrenched in proudly “GE-free,
Clean and Green New Zealand” than commonly
perceived:• In the food chain — Though New
Zealand does have labeling laws, these don’t apply to some
“highly processed” ingredients, and it is estimated that
around 70% of processed foods from imported soy, corn,
canola and cotton seed contain GE derived ingredients. There
are already 76 varieties of foods approved by Food Standards
Australia New Zealand Authority (FSANZ), and FSANZ was
recently the first in the world to approve Dow’s
controversial soy and corn engineered to resist higher doses
of 2,4-D (the infamous component of Agent
Orange).• Major players in the seed and agrochemical
markets — The “Big Six” corporations (that
together control 75% of the global pesticide market and with
a few others account for 73% of the world’s commercial
seed sales) are becoming major players in New Zealand’s
seed and pesticide markets. The Pioneer (DuPont) or Seminis
(Monsanto) signs tagged next to fields are emblematic of the
global restructuring of agriculture, where increasingly
corporations control what goes in and what comes out, and
farmers are reduced to mere labor.• The dairy
industry’s developing dependence on GE-feed — The
last decade has seen a continuing intensification of New
Zealand agriculture, compensated in no small part by the
“ecological subsidies” of nitrogen fertilizers and
imported livestock feed. Huge increases in imported GE
cotton seed meal and soy to feed dairy cows, which does not
have to be labeled under NZ law, means farmers may not even
be aware that they are using GE. Consumers in other
countries may be quick to ditch NZ dairy as they discover
“grass-fed” is being replaced by
“roundup-ready-soy-fed”.• Appropriation of
“indigenous values” — Last year, the Federation of
Māori Authorities was a sponsor of the Agricultural
Biotechnology International Conference, stating that “We
will bring a unique element to the discussion because of our
cultural and environmental values where taking care of the
land that we operate businesses on is just as important as
making a profit.” Te Waka Kai Ora (the National Māori
Organics Authority Aotearoa) sees this as part of the
industry’s insidious campaign to push their agenda onto
indigenous communities. GE is being pitched to Māori
growers “under the guise of financial benefit” and
without the “full story about the total ramifications of
introducing GM and its impacts on the whakapapa and genetic
make-up of our food.” The NZ government also paid a hefty
sum to sponsor the biotech conference, though exact numbers
have not been revealed.• Influential folks pushing
GE — The US government has spent the last decade
trying to convince NZ that it has a moral imperative to
adopt GE. It funds “educational programmes” to
“promote the uptake of biotechnology in New Zealand by
outlining its benefits and pointing out the flaws in the
statements of detractors” (US Embassy Reports). The threat
of “crisis” has regularly been manipulated to justify
sidestepping any form of precaution — during the recent
drought in NZ, Federated Farmers’ vice-president William
Rollerston advocated for changing the country’s
“restrictive” GE-regulations in order to develop
drought-resistant grasses and crops. Similarly, Monsanto has
used the case of the devastation of the kiwifruit industry
by Psa disease to lobby for GE-solutions, despite
indisputable evidence that such “solutions” can cause
the very types of catastrophes they claim to avert (take,
for example, the superweeds and superbugs spreading across
the US).Though already concerning, these trends, and the
power of the biotech/chemical industry to force its way into
New Zealand more generally, will expand radically with the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The TPPA is a
highly secretive international agreement being negotiated
under the pretext of “trade” between eleven Asian and
Pacific-rim countries, including the United States.If
passed, TPPA will amount to the biggest corporate power grab
New Zealand has seen since colonization, putting the rights
of corporations above those of elected governments and
sovereign nations. Under the cryptic title of “Investor
State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS), foreign corporations
could challenge New Zealand laws and regulations that
undermine their expected profits, holding them liable for
these losses. Challenges could be brought for everything
from attempts to stop potentially harmful GE-foods from
entering the food chain, to regulating the impacts of
pesticides on water quality. The government would be tried
in private offshore tribunals that lack transparency and due
process.These private tribunals routinely put the
economic interests of corporations ahead of the rights of
governments. Under NAFTA’s ISDS provisions the Mexican
government was sued by three separate corporations for their
tax on High Fructose Corn Syrup, and forced to pay nearly
USD $170 million. The highest monetary award in the history
of ISDS was ruled on last year when Ecuador was ordered to
pay $1.77 billion to Occidental Petroleum Corp for
terminating their oil contract. We might think of the recent
debate over asset sales in NZ, and how decisions that should
be the result of democratic processes and dialogue could
instead be decided by overseas courts staffed with corporate
attorneys.The US government and biotech/chemical industry
are pushing hard to use the TPPA as a vehicle for
“developing a common regulatory approach” for GE. In
other words, exporting the anti-democratic, non-transparent,
and non-scientific US “regulatory” regime to other
countries. This could put labeling laws on the chopping
block, undermine countries’ ability to conduct rigorous
risk assessments of GE, and absolve corporations of
responsibility for unapproved GE contamination.The
effects of past “free-trade” agreements are
well-documented, and the TPPA is even more extreme and
destructive in its reach. If passed, it will lower
environmental and labor protections, weaken biosecurity and
food safety efforts, encourage a “race-to-the bottom” in
agricultural production, cripple local food economies, lead
to further corporate consolidation in all parts of the food
chain, and threaten Māori rights to land and resources.
Most fundamentally, the TPPA will radically undermine
people’s ability to participate in defining what kind of
future they want. While we can’t know the exact
details of the TPPA because it is being negotiated in
secret, what is certain is that it is advancing a food
future designed by Monstanto, DuPont, Syngenta and the rest
of the agricultural giants— one where the only logic is
profit accumulation through expropriation and exploitation
of common resources and the common good. In an age of
climate change and fossil fuel depletion, when we urgently
need a food system that is resilient and regenerative,
equitable and democratic, the TPPA is taking us in exactly
the opposite
direction.